The definition of nothingness is the absence of anything.
If there is energy, it's not pure nothingness.
If there there is no energy and no matter, but there is spacetime, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is no energy, no matter and no spacetime, but a dream, or a illusion, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is anything, it's not pure nothingness.
You have to use another word!
If there is energy, it's not pure nothingness.
If there there is no energy and no matter, but there is spacetime, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is no energy, no matter and no spacetime, but a dream, or a illusion, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is anything, it's not pure nothingness.
You have to use another word!
The definition of nothingness is the absence of anything.
If there is energy, it's not pure nothingness.
If there there is no energy and no matter, but there is spacetime, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is no energy, no matter and no spacetime, but a dream, or a illusion, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is anything, it's not pure nothingness.
You have to use another word!
If there is energy, it's not pure nothingness.
If there there is no energy and no matter, but there is spacetime, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is no energy, no matter and no spacetime, but a dream, or a illusion, it's not pure nothingness.
If there is anything, it's not pure nothingness.
You have to use another word!
Well, maybe I don't have to...
You see, even if we describe nothingness as the absence of anything, we can't be absolutely sure that there was nothingness once. We don't know what was before matter, space and time. Maybe the thing we call nothingness is impossible in nature (or even before nature was born, it was impossible). It's like we can say that there is a temperature under 0 °K, let's say, -1°K. But there is nothing in the universe what is colder than 0°K, it's simply impossible (see Brown movement). So the capability of describing true nothingness doesn't necessarily mean that true nothingness can exist.
See, you are addicted to your definition of nothingness and you belive that before anything was created, there was nothingness. But maybe there wasn't... Just look at the law of energy persistence - how could anything come to being in the universe if there was no energy earlier? Energy has to be - even before anything, there had to be energy because it made creation possible.
So there is rather being than nothing because nothingness can not exist. What exists, exists always, and there is only one such thing. Time is nothing - it's just lienar for us, but it might not be linear for the universe. So whatever was 15 billions of years ago, is today, and whatever is today, was 15 billions of years ago too. Just see beyond the image of true nothingness and some other definitions which might not be true.
Well, maybe I don't have to...
You see, even if we describe nothingness as the absence of anything, we can't be absolutely sure that there was nothingness once. We don't know what was before matter, space and time. Maybe the thing we call nothingness is impossible in nature (or even before nature was born, it was impossible). It's like we can say that there is a temperature under 0 °K, let's say, -1°K. But there is nothing in the universe what is colder than 0°K, it's simply impossible (see Brown movement). So the capability of describing true nothingness doesn't necessarily mean that true nothingness can exist.
See, you are addicted to your definition of nothingness and you belive that before anything was created, there was nothingness. But maybe there wasn't... Just look at the law of energy persistence - how could anything come to being in the universe if there was no energy earlier? Energy has to be - even before anything, there had to be energy because it made creation possible.
So there is rather being than nothing because nothingness can not exist. What exists, exists always, and there is only one such thing. Time is nothing - it's just lienar for us, but it might not be linear for the universe. So whatever was 15 billions of years ago, is today, and whatever is today, was 15 billions of years ago too. Just see beyond the image of true nothingness and some other definitions which might not be true.
You see, even if we describe nothingness as the absence of anything, we can't be absolutely sure that there was nothingness once. We don't know what was before matter, space and time. Maybe the thing we call nothingness is impossible in nature (or even before nature was born, it was impossible). It's like we can say that there is a temperature under 0 °K, let's say, -1°K. But there is nothing in the universe what is colder than 0°K, it's simply impossible (see Brown movement). So the capability of describing true nothingness doesn't necessarily mean that true nothingness can exist.
See, you are addicted to your definition of nothingness and you belive that before anything was created, there was nothingness. But maybe there wasn't... Just look at the law of energy persistence - how could anything come to being in the universe if there was no energy earlier? Energy has to be - even before anything, there had to be energy because it made creation possible.
So there is rather being than nothing because nothingness can not exist. What exists, exists always, and there is only one such thing. Time is nothing - it's just lienar for us, but it might not be linear for the universe. So whatever was 15 billions of years ago, is today, and whatever is today, was 15 billions of years ago too. Just see beyond the image of true nothingness and some other definitions which might not be true.
I've never said I believed before anything was created, there was nothingness.
I said that what amazes me is that instead of a eternal nothingness, there is something. I've never said I believed they was nothing and then, pouf!, something appeared. Actually, this is why I believe in a "divine force", because nothing can appear in nothingness.
If you want to talk about something where there is nothing BUT some kind of "energy" (or even "potential energy"), why do you need to use the word "nothingness"? Use "vacuity", "emptiness" or "pure energy". What you talk about is not nothingness, it's not the "absence of anything". If you really want to give another meaning to "nothingness", then I will have to use another word, because we are not talking about the same concept! ;-)
I've never said I believed before anything was created, there was nothingness.
I said that what amazes me is that instead of a eternal nothingness, there is something. I've never said I believed they was nothing and then, pouf!, something appeared. Actually, this is why I believe in a "divine force", because nothing can appear in nothingness.
If you want to talk about something where there is nothing BUT some kind of "energy" (or even "potential energy"), why do you need to use the word "nothingness"? Use "vacuity", "emptiness" or "pure energy". What you talk about is not nothingness, it's not the "absence of anything". If you really want to give another meaning to "nothingness", then I will have to use another word, because we are not talking about the same concept! ;-)
I said that what amazes me is that instead of a eternal nothingness, there is something. I've never said I believed they was nothing and then, pouf!, something appeared. Actually, this is why I believe in a "divine force", because nothing can appear in nothingness.
If you want to talk about something where there is nothing BUT some kind of "energy" (or even "potential energy"), why do you need to use the word "nothingness"? Use "vacuity", "emptiness" or "pure energy". What you talk about is not nothingness, it's not the "absence of anything". If you really want to give another meaning to "nothingness", then I will have to use another word, because we are not talking about the same concept! ;-)
Whatever. I don't use "vacuity" first of all because I don't know that word :)
Your question is why is there being rather than nothing. I gave you an answer: there is being because total nothingness is impossible, as well as -1 °K is impossible and a lot of other things are impossible which we can tell by words, but there is nothing like it in the universe. Nothingness is not something what the universe could choose - like either there is nothing or there is something, and it decided which one will happen...
The concept of nothingness is wrong, it cannot be real, and so your question is already answered.
Whatever. I don't use "vacuity" first of all because I don't know that word :)
Your question is why is there being rather than nothing. I gave you an answer: there is being because total nothingness is impossible, as well as -1 °K is impossible and a lot of other things are impossible which we can tell by words, but there is nothing like it in the universe. Nothingness is not something what the universe could choose - like either there is nothing or there is something, and it decided which one will happen...
The concept of nothingness is wrong, it cannot be real, and so your question is already answered.
Your question is why is there being rather than nothing. I gave you an answer: there is being because total nothingness is impossible, as well as -1 °K is impossible and a lot of other things are impossible which we can tell by words, but there is nothing like it in the universe. Nothingness is not something what the universe could choose - like either there is nothing or there is something, and it decided which one will happen...
The concept of nothingness is wrong, it cannot be real, and so your question is already answered.
I agree with you nothingess is impossible! Nothingness doesn't exist and can't exist, since to exist it should be something!
But there is a subtility:
If nothing had never existed. If there was no energy, no matter, no time, no universe. If there was nothing at all, we could say it would then be the pure nothingness. Not that nothingness would then "exists", but we could use this word to talk about what would then "be": nothing.
In my opinion, it would be a lot more logical if there would be nothing at all. I'm not saying it's possible now, since we know there is currently something! I'm saying in my opinion it would have made more sense if nothing would have existed at all, ever.
The fact that there is something, and not the absence of anything, is what makes me believe in a divine force.
I agree with you nothingess is impossible! Nothingness doesn't exist and can't exist, since to exist it should be something!
But there is a subtility:
If nothing had never existed. If there was no energy, no matter, no time, no universe. If there was nothing at all, we could say it would then be the pure nothingness. Not that nothingness would then "exists", but we could use this word to talk about what would then "be": nothing.
In my opinion, it would be a lot more logical if there would be nothing at all. I'm not saying it's possible now, since we know there is currently something! I'm saying in my opinion it would have made more sense if nothing would have existed at all, ever.
The fact that there is something, and not the absence of anything, is what makes me believe in a divine force.
But there is a subtility:
If nothing had never existed. If there was no energy, no matter, no time, no universe. If there was nothing at all, we could say it would then be the pure nothingness. Not that nothingness would then "exists", but we could use this word to talk about what would then "be": nothing.
In my opinion, it would be a lot more logical if there would be nothing at all. I'm not saying it's possible now, since we know there is currently something! I'm saying in my opinion it would have made more sense if nothing would have existed at all, ever.
The fact that there is something, and not the absence of anything, is what makes me believe in a divine force.
Imagine this: if time would stop, let's say for a year, then we, who do experience this time continuously, we wouldn't have any idea or experience at all about that timestop. If everything would stop for a while and then start again, we wouldn't know about it.
So, it seems to be impossible to find a solution what would make us find out the timestop, because even if we would make a camera what would be able to record everything for a year, the camera would also stop and nothing would be recorded. Of course, there is a solution for this problem, it's just that we have to be outside of this time-space continuum to be able to experience the timestop of this world.
Now imagine this: there is a flat world of 2 dimensional creatures. They have biology, physics and everything, and actually, they are parts of our world - they "create" 2 dimensions of our 3 dimensional world. The only difference between them and us is that we are capable of recognizing the 3rd dimension while they are not. They have no idea about us. But think of this: maybe - and it's a really serious theory - there is a fourth dimension in space but we only experience 3 dimensions of it. If the fourth dimension would be missing, we would never realize that it's gone. As well as if the 3rd dimension would be missing, the 2 dimensional creatures wouldn't find it out.
Now imagine this: energy-persistence is a pretty sure (but of course, not absoulte) theory, one of the basic theories of our world. We say that the amount of energy in the world is always the same. So we say now like there is X energy in the world and there has always been X energy. But if the divine force, God, Brahman or whatever in it's timeless world (at least not lienar in time) would come and put 100 energy into this world then we would say: yes there is X+100 energy in our world. And we would say: and there has always been X+100 energy in our world.
See, time and space are funny things. There is nothing illogical in the condition that there is being and not nothingness. We can say that there IS nothingness - it's just that we are unable to experience it, this is why it's called nothingness :) This is why we say that it's impossible - sure it seems impossible, but maybe it is possible, we just can't experience it, just as noone and nothing else can.
Actually, these questions are more like tricky and funny, and not so much worthy :)
Hahaha!
I just lost half my brain cells trying to understand your arguments. Well done!
I just lost half my brain cells trying to understand your arguments. Well done!
Hahaha!
I just lost half my brain cells trying to understand your arguments. Well done!
I just lost half my brain cells trying to understand your arguments. Well done!
It would be more fun to lose your brain cells by drinking beer with your friends than to think about things like this :)
It would be more fun to lose your brain cells by drinking beer with your friends than to think about things like this :)
Oh yeah! What a fun way to create nothingness in our brain! :-)
Think again. Imagine that there is no matter in the universe without energy. What if the "ultimate nothingness" is exactly what - on an other level - we call energy? Actually, noone really knows what energy is. We just know that we can use it as a mathematical quantity. But we don't know what it is. What if energy is nothingness? What if the "ultimate nothing" is energy?
This would explain everything.
Think about that matter is only an experience of our consciousness. When the energy-waves of our consciousness interacts with other energy-waves, we call this experiencing. And we realize and describe this experience mentally through our mental images and thoughts. But these images and thoughts don't exist. They're just products of our consciousness, the ultimate observer of the universe.
How was the world created? It was not. It's still the same as it was before all the creation: it still contains only that same nothingness - which is energy itself.
We have a tendency to think that if nothing happens then some kinf of static situation occurs. But maybe this isn't true. We don't know - this is just a belief, not an axiom. Indeed, physic's most law is imminent and not precise. So maybe nothingness itself, as a pure condition, contains some movement - the movement of energywaves.